consider the following argument\npremise: if a corrosive is acid, then it is dangerous\npremise: hcl is…

consider the following argument\npremise: if a corrosive is acid, then it is dangerous\npremise: hcl is dangerous\nconclusion: hcl is a type of acid\na identify the form of the conditional argument and determine its validity with a venn diagram\nb evaluate the truth of the premises and state whether the argument is sound\na the argument is affirming the conclusion\nlet x represent hcl in the venn diagram. which venn diagram below shows the correct placement\na\nb\nc\nthe argument is valid

consider the following argument\npremise: if a corrosive is acid, then it is dangerous\npremise: hcl is dangerous\nconclusion: hcl is a type of acid\na identify the form of the conditional argument and determine its validity with a venn diagram\nb evaluate the truth of the premises and state whether the argument is sound\na the argument is affirming the conclusion\nlet x represent hcl in the venn diagram. which venn diagram below shows the correct placement\na\nb\nc\nthe argument is valid

Answer

Explanation:

Step1: Analyze the conditional statement

The first premise is "If a corrosive is acid, then it is dangerous", which can be written as "Acid → Dangerous". The second - premise is "HCl is dangerous" and the conclusion is "HCl is a type of acid". This is an example of affirming the consequent (not affirming the conclusion as wrongly stated in the original text).

Step2: Use Venn - diagram analysis

In a Venn - diagram for "Acid → Dangerous", the set of acids is a subset of the set of dangerous substances. Just because HCl is in the "dangerous" set (second premise), we cannot conclude it is in the "acids" subset. So the argument is invalid.

Step3: Evaluate premise truth

The first premise "If a corrosive is acid, then it is dangerous" is generally true as acids are often dangerous due to their corrosive nature. The second premise "HCl is dangerous" is also true as HCl is a strong and corrosive acid. But since the argument is invalid, it is not sound.

Answer:

a. The form of the conditional argument is affirming the consequent and it is invalid. b. The first premise is true and the second premise is true, but the argument is not sound because it is invalid.